WHO WOULD BE THE ONE?

Americans like to hear politicians talk; they like to listen to speeches on issues that interest them most, and they like to show their appreciation, when someone gives a really good speech.

However, what politicians should always guard against should be what they chose to speak about, and how much knowledge they had on that topic. They have to be conversant with a topic by having a whole amount of information to give to support the facts that they thought were related to it.

Otherwise, they would sound boring and monotonous, by circling around a subject with the same language or statements. They would only be going round in circles, by changing their words to explain a subject on which they had a limited amount of knowledge; and that would not suffice.

A lot of that has been happening lately in the campaign for the 2012 presidential election, even though, the actual campaign season has not really started yet; and that seemed to have put some politicians, who already were candidates, in the failing grade.

There should not be any finger pointing here, but some persons should be more careful about what they said on everything that they attempted to deal with, in terms of how they approached whatever that was, or they were likely to put their "foot in their mouths".

That would not fare well for any candidate on the Republican Party side. For they, being the challengers, should be wary of what they said, particularly on specialized topics, such as the national economy, and how to get it to improve. They must sound impressive on such topics beyond everyone's expectation, to indicate that they were in the know.

Several versions of plans have been proposed, including the newest one that President Barack Obama intended to reveal in September (He is still a candidate on the Democratic Party side, until his reelection bid succeeds).

There was the Bachmann one, which would make a $2 dollar price per a gallon of gas a real possibility. (Be mindful of the fact that campaign promises have not started as yet; but don't hold your breath).

There were the Romney and Perry types, which were similar, because they were geared to job creation. They would involve programs favoring the business world and the financial industry, respectively. The only obvious aspect missing in those plans was that, they had nothing in them, in the form of peace offering, for the middle or working class people.

Whether wages would go up at a rate comparable to corporate profits; or if workers and labor unions would have better conditions in the workplace, were factors which were simply overlooked. Those and other items favorable to unions and workers, even if they were mentioned in speeches, have not been fully specified in sober terms for the ordinary folk to grasp or comprehend.

Some even thought, without any doubt, that the unions and working people have been practically left out of the two and almost identical plans; and such sentiment has stemmed from the speeches of the two men.

Businessman Herman Cain has a proposal that was aiming at an economy that would seemingly interest the business world only, because it was completely soaked in capitalism. It was fraught with uncompromising and silly ideas that would make the most ardent business person blush; by insisting that the business world was "the engine" that carried the caboose (economy). The engine must therefore be fueled with capital investments, and that would get the economy moving again.

People knew what he was talking about; namely, the internal and international business transactions that the U.S. was involved in, and which drove the economy. Yet, his description of the country's economic picture was so simplistic in such a way that, it brought out so much laughter from his audience, each time he repeated it. They even made a joke of it, by saying that what was in the caboose, nobody could tell.

In fact, each of the candidates has formulated a plan of some sorts to fix what they all described as an economy on the blink. Their policies would be totally different from that of the president; they have all systematically maintained. However, there was no actual specificity in any of those plans; except for the $2 dollar gas price, of course.

Only if they would come out with policies that people would understand and be able to choose from, because they were viable propositions, instead of leaving them (people) guessing of what their intentions were. Until then, they would have a hard time in convincing potential voters that they were serious about tackling the issues they would face in the future.

Right now, it was very difficult to make anything substantial out of their speeches, because they were virtually empty and void of specifics; notwithstanding the fact that the campaign season was not here yet. It would be worth their while, if they made people (to) become aware that they have the wherewithal, as well as the right credentials, to occupy the lofty position that they were clamoring for; the presidency of the United States.

Besides, there was very little doubt that any of them could challenge Obama, despite the present lousy economy. Liberal and independent voters were hoping that his newly proposed plan would work to reduce the rate of unemployment, and that would get the economy up and running again; they would then vote for him, as they did in 2008. He was, undoubtedly, going to need them.

The most formidable responsibility would be for the Republican National Committee to select the one person that its members thought was more vocal, perceptive and well informed, to face off with Obama in the 2012 general election. Who would that person be?

No one would dare to answer that now; for when that critical moment should come, the repetitive, frivolous and empty speeches would have ended a long time ago. They would have been thrown out of the window; and the Republicans would have made a better choice. Let us hope so.

For now, Americans like to hear facts from politicians, because there are more problems ahead that will need real solutions.